Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

McCain vs Obama: By the Numbers

The Democratic presidential nomination fight continues on without end, but attention is beginning to shift to the prospects of a general election battle between Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and John McCain (Ariz.).

A new poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC provides us with a benchmark of where the likely Obama-McCain general election matchup stands -- and gives us scads of data to sort through in an attempt to understand the strengths and weaknesses of these two candidates.

In the head-to-head matchup, Obama leads McCain, 51 percent to 44 percent, a margin roughly similar to the 49 percent to 44 percent edge he held in the Post/ABC survey in April. Obama held a wider 52 percent to 40 percent lead in a March Post/ABC poll.

The Fix, as always, seeks to go beyond the basics and bring Fixistas the essential information you can't get anywhere else. Thanks to Washington Post polling director -- and all around good guy -- Jon Cohen, we have a wellspring of numbers to slice and dice as we see fit.

At first glance, it's clear that while this election may be historic on some levels, some of the traditional divides between the parties remain.

Take the gender gap. Obama and McCain are statistically tied among men (Obama 48 percent, McCain 47 percent), but the Illinois senator has a 14-point edge among women. That margin is due in large part to Obama's strength among black women, who favor him over McCain by a whopping 90 points. (That is not a typo.) McCain actually leads among white women, 50 percent to 43 percent, a reflection, perhaps of some lingering ill will among supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

Similarly, Obama expectedly does better among lower income voters while the two candidates run even among the more affluent. Obama holds a wide 16-point lead among those with a household income of $50,000 or less while McCain is ahead of Obama, 49 percent to 48 percent, among those making $50,000 or more.

But, there is also data in the guts of the poll that suggests another Democratic year is brewing, with Obama positioned to take full advantage.

A look at the presidential vote by region suggests a shift in political inclination is at work. Not surprisingly, Obama holds his largest lead over McCain (18 points) in the Northeast -- an area that has become increasingly dominated by Democrats in recent elections.

But, Obama also holds a lead in the traditional battleground area of the Midwest -- where Obama takes 54 percent to McCain's 41 percent -- and in the Republican-leaning territory of the West where Obama holds a double-digit lead at the moment. And, even in the South, where Republicans have dominated at the federal level for much of the past four decades, Obama is competitive; McCain takes 49 percent to 45 percent for the Illinois senator.

While McCain trails by double digits in three of the four regions of the country, he actually far over performs his own party's showing in the Post poll.

Asked which party they trusted to "do a better job of coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years," voters across the country opted for Democrats by wide margins.

In the Northeast, Democrats outpaced Republicans by 29 points while the margin was 26 points in the Midwest. The news wasn't much better for Republicans in the West (Democrats +18) or the South (Democrats +15).

Those two sets of numbers provide clear evidence of two things: the Republican brand is badly damaged and McCain may be the GOP's best (and only) chance to redefine it and win in November.

McCain runs far stronger than the generic Republican in not only the various geographic regions of the country but across nearly every demographic group. That includes white Catholics (McCain trails Obama by just two while Republicans lag behind Democrats by 16 points), non-college voters (McCain down six, Republicans down 21) and voters 55 or older (McCain up one point, Republicans down 19).

While those problems bode poorly for downballot candidates -- and could well explain the party's losses in House special election in Illinois and Louisiana and its potential defeat tonight in Mississippi's 1st district -- it provides some hope that McCain is seen as a different kind of Republican by many voters and could, in theory, reinvent the GOP brand between now and November.

While that possibility exists for McCain, other data in the poll suggests there are considerable hurdles to remaking the party brand.

Most importantly, self-identified independent and moderate voters continue to act like Democrats -- a trend that led to that party retaking majorities in Congress in 2006.

Obama holds a nine-point lead among independent voters -- 51 percent to 42 percent -- and a wider 19-point bulge among moderates.

Both candidates demonstrate some cross-party appeal. Obama wins 15 percent of self identified Republicans (Sen. John Kerry took just six percent of those voters in 2004) while McCain wins 13 percent of self-identified Democrats. Those numbers could well change, however, as the election engages and partisan tendencies harden.

All in all, the Obama forces have to be pleased with the poll results as they show the Illinois senator is not only running strong among traditional Democratic groups but also doing better among typical swing groups than McCain.

Still, when matched against the generic numbers, there is reason for concern among Democrats as McCain is clearly over-performing his party in any number of key demographic groups -- a showing that suggests he has the potential to make the November election far closer than the political climate suggests it should be.

Hillary is the strongest candidate, for all reasons given in the article. In addition, she knows how to govern. Neither Barack nor McSame do. Barack has demonstrated that he knows how to deliver speeches and get votes. McSame has demonstrated that he knows how to seem to be an independent while flipflopping on issues. We actually need a president who can win and govern. Hillary is the one who can do both.

Those who claim they will not vote for the other Democratic nominee if their preferred candidate, I believe, are just saying that now because they are intensely attached to their candidate and want ever so much to see their preferred candidate succeed.........but won't really act on those impulses when they realize how much is at stake come November.

How many times have you heard people of either party claim that they'll move to Canada or elsewhere if their candidate lost the election? Remember 2004? And how many who SAID that actually DID leave? No one I know.

Look, the polls frequently suggest that most Democrats really like all their candidates, and these sentiments that voters have of wanting their candidate to win so much they say irrational things like threatening to not vote for the other Democrat are natural and commonplace. We saw this in 1992, as well as when Jesse Jackson was seeking the Democratic nomination.

I'm quite certain that only a razor-thin minority of those who are saying what they are saying will actually ACT upon what they SAY and follow through on their instincts at the moment. After all, both candidates have said that, whatever happens, we need a Democrat in the White House, and in the event either candidate loses, that same candidate will do all he/she can to help campaign for their former primary opponent.

Thus, if Hillary Clinton has constantly urged her supporters to support Barack Obama if she doesn't win, or Barack Obama has urged his supporters to back Hillary Clinton if he somehow falls short, it would be working AGAINST their candidate's wishes to not support the Democratic nominee, would it not?

In the end, when many Americans see that John McCain has no intention of changing course in Iraq despite two-thirds of Americans urging so, admitting that economics "is not something I've understood as well as I should." and even skipped an economic stimulus passage vote despite his fellow senators on the same plane he was on being able to make it to the floor on time, and just now being unable to demonstrate leadership and sign on to a new GI Bill that has been endorsed by EVERY veterans affairs group and most Senate and House members.............I believe they'll connect the dots and see that he is not the so-called "independent voice" that the mainstream media has tirelessly depicted him as.

I voted for Hillary and if she is not nominated I will vote for McCain if his Vice President choice is acceptable. Obama lacks knowledge in the way the govenment works and we will end up with a stalemate on most issues that need to be taken care of now. We just can't afford to put these issues off any longer.

Thank you West Virginia for keeping our greatest hope for November alive and well. I'm so sick of "do the math". It was less than 3 months ago the pundits said Obama cannot win by math alone. Thump, 41 points, thump, West Virginia. You do the math. Obama cannot win in the general election. We Democrats need to do the right thing and nominate Hillary. She can win in November without Obama and he can't win without her (not that he would ask or she would accept). Just like men, pundits, DNC, news media, to ask the woman to make him President. Please wake up, voters left and superdelegates, it's not over yet, and Hillary will win and prevail in the end!!! Also, please donate to Hillary at www.hillaryclinton.com

"Black Racism"? Come on. How quickly we forget the start of this race. Back in November Obama and Hillary were virtually tied among African-American men, and Hillary had 68% of African-American women. His appeal among African-Americans grew as they got to know his campaign. His style is reminiscent of great African-American orators and preachers so that helped as well. And curiously, for some reason, Black people seem to always vote in blocs once they find a candidate they like. White or Black. They overwhelmingly voted like this for Bill Clinton. Conversely, Al Sharpton couldn't even get more than 37% of the Black vote in any state. It's not racism, they've just found the candidate they like more this year. Actually, a racist vote is more about choosing AGAINST someone rather than FOR someone else. Racist would never vote for the other race in the first place.

Last time I checked Hillary has only 60% of the female vote and yet Obama has 90% of the black vote so it's the black racism you should be worried about not feminism.

Oh and I have noticed how some of the female gender hate themselves; they hate that they are women and so they vehemently project this gender self loathing onto a woman political figure no matter who she is or how good she is at her job. You are the females who need some psychotherapy sessions to figure why you so irrationally hate Hillary Clinton who has done nothing but send aide to women who are single parents and to level the playing field for your gender in a country that is STILL patriarchal. You may as well be aiming the gun at your own foot.

I can understand men hating a woman political figure because she threatens the status quo of male figurehead domination BUT I have a hard time grasping women who hate Hillary because she is a woman. Projected self hatred. I have heard the silliest reasons. Some women actually hate her because her husband had an affair. What the !#*@!

You hate your gender so much that you are too blind to see that Hillary Clinton is:

I believe that people that will turn 18 Between the current date and november, have not been polled, McCain could win those votes. Also I believe that if the Democratic party is split like it will if Obama or Clinton wins, the the Electon will be won by Senator John McCain.

women supporting HC are "shrill, hysterical, racists, monsters"? So I guess that is the healing message being sent out by the Obama campaign to women supporting HC. Using every stereotypical narrow minded charicature of women you could think of. Perhaps you used those kinds of comments at work to get fired and a huge EEOC complaint filed against you.

And you dare to question with those kinds of idiotic comments why so many HC supporters will be permanently leaving the D Party?

that is not what I am hearing mark from the Houston Noreiga campaign. They are worried sick what a depressed hispanic vote, the core of this state's electorate, will not do in the Valley, El Paso and Houston with Obama, and why Congressman Lampson is scared to death as an uncomitted delegate to endorse Obama which he feels will doom his re-election. At least that is the feedback I am getting from their campaign managers. Noreiga has little to no money and will likely be outspent by at least 5:1, a recipe in Texas for disaster in our culturally conservative state where no one knows who he is, even most in his own party. Our precinct caucus is scheduling a meeting on June 4 to determine if we will all be supporting McCain, which is my inclination.

37th&OStreet - Actually...YES! And there are mor than a few of us anti-Cltinon Democrats that feel precisely the same way. We will never again think of feminists as anything other than shrill hysterical racist self serving monsters that have no place in polite society. I hope that there are enough of us to band together with the right to make them pay for destroying the Democratic Party.

Well Well Well - Don't get carried away. McCain is a decent man and is likely the only candidate that wont owe his soul to someone else. I expect Obama to have Clinton shoved down his throat, which will make him completely unacceptable to me and millions of other Obama "tire kickers". What I want, what I expect, is to ruthless crush feminism as a danger to this country. Let's begin with Roe v. Wade, then remove "female" from any protected and affirmative action category. That's just a start.

In fact, McCain has been running for President as the change agent for as long as Obama has been, well in elected office, including his state senate spot - which the domestic terror Bill Ayers helped him get elected to.

Make some calls, do some investigation, see what the Washington lobbyists really think of McCain - they are concerned that he is REALLY going to change things, not just talk about a vague concept in a gym with a bunch of college kids.

In fact, McCain has been running for President as the change agent for as long as Obama has been, well in elected office, including his state senate spot - which the domestic terror Bill Ayers helped him get elected to.

Make some calls, do some investigation, see what the Washington lobbyists really think of McCain - they are concerned that he is REALLY going to change things, not just talk about a vague concept in a gym with a bunch of college kids.

Rubes, I am planing on passing all sorts of expensive enviro laws right away. so your concerns about food are misplaced. We will be converting all your food to ethanol. then we will be requiring banks to lend money to anyone who can spell O_B_O_M_A. If this doesn't work, we will increase taxes enough to make it work.
If any of this bothers you, I suggest you pray to your god to save you, relying on government results only in clinging to frustration and guns. Oh, by the way, we are outlawing ammo, nothing in the 2nd amendment against that.

thanks for the vote. did you notice the flag pin, I wore it just for you.

"Check the score come November and we'll see what this country is really about."

I keep checking and the liberal always loses. and even when you run a conservative Dem, he can't break 50% and turns out to be hated by the party in a few short years. so soon you can add Obama to the ash heap of failed Libs, along with gore, Kerry, Dean, McGovern, Dukakis, Carter, Mondale, etc.

My that list is long. but don't let the facts disturb your temporary utopia. Of course the voters want to hand over all their decisions and money to the government. what business do parents have raising their own children? how dare you try to spend your own money?

Obama - guide us!!!!! We fly-over rubes need help deciding what to eat for dinner tonight. the Food Lion was out of Arugula and we can't read the regulations you sent us.

Wow. You know what he forgot to mention in his blog? About 50% of the Democrats will not vote for Obama. We will be writing in Hillary's name on the ballot if we have too. Why? Because we watched our candidate get bullied and trashed by the DNC and by the Republican owned media (hint). That would allow McCain to win which is fine with most of us since McCain at least doesn't hate America and didn't arrogantly dismiss and bully Hillary to drop out of the race.

They guy Obama and his wife actually scare us because he is a racist, arrogant, inexperienced candidate (and that's just for starters). I'll bet he scares the independent voters even more. Put that into your numbers and redo.

Oh and BTW I am a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Democrat with a college degree and I don't vote for inexperienced media rock stars just because the Republican media tells me to.

off topic-cc your aware of the fact that in order to read the responses on here, you would have to scroll to the very bottom? oh yeah, whats up with last's weeks friday line, i couldnt get to it either.

a note on polls- i would have to agree with the general consensus that polls shown this early, while fun, is bunk. its only 7 months out and were already picking out cabinet positions.

anything can change in the next few months. keep that in mind fix-istas(or what ever silly name you guys go by now.)

way to go bsimon calling us cultist. Brilliant way to attract the voters you will need to win. apparently you haven't received the memo yet; insulting folks you intend doesn't work well. Keep it up. My precinct's 85 HC caucus will be having a meeting in my home and I will be printing and reading each comment like yours to them. Calling them cultists, old evil, dinosaurs, monsters, whithered, racists,uneducated, does that about summarize your campaign's attitude towards your opponent. That should sit well with those folks in my precinct I will let them know that you think now about them. Keep driving that message, and I can assure there will end up being far more than 28% of us leaving the party.

proud I am a McCain supporter but knock off the garbage of left v right. Yea I am disgusted with the strong arm tactics and myopia of moveon to force Obama purity but that is not why I support McCain, its b/c Obama is totally unqualified to be Pres. period other than his few years in the Illinois Senate and a nondescript brief history in the Us Senate, and his absolutely hypocritical refusal to cast important votes, a sign of political calculation but certainly not leadership.I find a lot of fault with McCain's policies but screaming lefties doesn't impress me to support your candidate.Its funny I recall JFK with his 13 years in Congress being called a lightweight. McCain has charcater, strength and authenticity something lacking when Obama constantly talks about how great he is and what great speeches he gives, brushes his shoulder and shoe and shoots the finger to a roaring crowd when he addresses his opponent. Stick to McCain's personal story and strength, b/c name calling while it may be popular with your party does nothing to attract cross over Ds. Remmber; it was the conservative crowd roaring with pleasure over 50,000 losses in Vietnam in the 60s and Rs have been shamed over the last 7 years, so don't dwell over the past or with name calling , we have heard enough of that garbage here from the Obama camp.

It's good to see that you are no longer talking as if Sen. Clinton has a chance in this race. She was toast after Obama's 11 straight wins.

The November elections are about change. Not rethorical change, not change in political dicourse. This coming elections are about generational change. They are about change from conservative to liberal change.

This change is so big, Obama is the living example of the new political progress to be delivered in November.

McCain is seventy plus years old and is a powerful symbol of what has to be voted out of the body politic. That is the only relevant figure in the November election.

Unfortunately, US elections are not won by ringing up large margins in a few states and claiming the popular vote (see the whole Democratic primary process or the Gore unelection as a reference). This poll represents a false hope in that in state-by-state polls McCain is ahead something like 240 electoral votes to 99, with the rest being toss ups. He has a lot of work to do.
Leon

Obama is small town American buddy. McCain is the spoiled son of an Admiral. The bitter statement is all relative guy...take it how you will. McCain's comments and associations are anything but relative.

Redline, perhaps if you actually read a few books, you could spell a few words correctly. I don't usually mention a few typos but your grammar indicates you are a victim of the public education system and your thinking seems to be equally muddled.

But I am sure you are one of those maladroits who accuse Bush of being stoopid.

Obama represents the extreme leftwing of the Democrat Party, Codepink, ACLU, pro-abortion, anti-military, anti-gun leftists. He cultivates their support, and talks about small town Americans with condescension and antipathy. Hardly presidential, imo.

The Republican's complete disdain for the environment, total capitulation to Corporate interests and disregard for personal and social freedom has alienated Western voters. The new Western Democrats (strong environmentalists, politically libertarian and socially liberal) have already taken WA, CA, OR and MT. NV, CO and NM are next. After the disaster of the Bush years, only the kool-aid drinking South will remain as the last bastion of conservative Republican evangelical bigotry.

Chris, let's get one thing straight, the Democratic Party is effectively wrecked and no one can win in November. Both the Clinton camps and the Obama camps are making preparations for a walk out at the convention. Obama partisan's wont accept Clinton as a VP; will see it as a sell out to racist swine and radical feminists. For their part, the Clinton peanut gallery sees Obama partisan's as starry eyed college kids and "AA's", "BA's", "darkies", and whatever other racial invectives you care to input here, without coming out and using the "N" word (but...they use that word, too, only, individually, to their faces for Obama campaigners). Small wonder that the poor white voters, having been given a "pass", are talking about, acting on some of the basest racism this country has witnessed in more than 40 years. Just today, too, you have on this very forum, a Clinton operative repeating their mantra that Barak Obama is a Muslim. This canard originated with the Clinton campaign and they have kept it alive, using it to "win" those ignorant poor white voters.

Right now, there isn't an Obama supporter alive who doesn't think that Clinton partisan's were responsible for the vandalism of various Obama campaign offices all over the country. The sad fact is, as represented by the various comments here, the Clinton partisan's hate the Obama partisan's and the Obama partisan's hate the Clinton folk. This isn't some ideological disagreement any longer, this is visceral "hate your guts" hatred that has spilled over to where some partisan's will not vote for Democratic candidates running for office that endorse the opposite candidate.

The repercussions are going to haunt the Democratic Party for years to come. It might even be a permanent rift. It is far too early to talk about the general election. As with Hitler in his bunker while the Russians bombed and shelled Berlin into rubble, punishing the German people for letting him down, so too is Hillary Clinton and her storm troopers operating.

No, Chris, the remaining question, the question of the day is "Can the Democratic Party survive the Clinton campaign". I think not.

Yeah it all started to decline in the 60's when all that civil rights, womens rights, no nukes, protect the earth hippie crap all started.

More and more minorities and women started getting higher degrees and trying to speak out and compete for our jobs. Kids started complaining about abuse, speaking there minds, and deciding what they wanted to do with their lives.

And know look at us. Where about to elect this Hawaii born, Harvard educated, community lawyer half-breed as President.

I also agree we are heading in the wrong direction bsimon, as I explained above. so I fit into the 8 out of 10.

My view is that this steady decline began sometime in the 60s, when liberalism was all the rage and was only interrupted for a short time thanks to Newt.

the wrong direction is exactly where Obama wants to go. But don't take my word for it - ask the voters in OH. As far as I can remember, they rejected him in droves. as did FL, PA, WV, CA, NY, NJ and other key states.

Obama is, at his core, a man of leftist instincts and unreliable character. He is the #1 most liberal Senator in the US Senate, even more liberal than Ted Kennedy, more liberal than Patrick Leahy, John Kerry, and more liberal even than Fix fav Shmuck Chewmore.

Obama's leftist instincts were born out as he shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries.

Obama panders to the left when it suits him (of course with his own touch of high-minded arrogance), and panderis toward the center when it advances his own self-interest.

You only have a lead if you are out side the error of the poll. Assuming the poll has the correct voter model. Which in a year like this is hard to do. Also there might be some people not telling the pollsters what they are planning to do in the fall.

The 51-44 is significant but other polls show a tie. Also many regional or demographic numbers are tied withing the post poll.

Good questions Mark and your past examples are good ones. Its a long road with many bumps and turns. Its going to be interesting, but I do think Obama has the edge on McCain and will only increase his lead over time.

I believe this mostly because McCain will ultimately deliver this to Obama through his own record, mistakes and gaffs, as it will contrast with the steady, calm, and respectful approach that Obama will take.

bsimon - I am willing to concede that PA and CO and NM will go into the D column. not VA, the state only votes for Dems when they are DINO's, not ultra leftists. the carolinas and the rest of the south is a fantasy for Dems. Add it up, It still boils down to OH and FL - not a good place for Obama's Waterloo. FL is out of the question and based on the results of the primary, I suppose that OH is too far govne for the leftist candidate.

this country is not going to turn back on solid progress in the conservative direction. We are willing to entertain certain quaint ideas like climate change and market based helath care, but the charge toward high taxes, big government and weak foreign policy is not what the voters are looking for.

when the polls indicate that the country is heading in the wrong direction, it is the liberal direction we are referring to - the slump in education, the lack of morals, the fall in responsibility, the nanny state, the lawsuit abuse, the entertainment debacle, the reign of terror of the MSM and universities. that is the wrong direction we want to correct.

Obama's campaign is not only focused on winning over existing voters, but getting more new voters (i.e. first-time and long-time disenchanfised voters). This is the strength of the Obama presidential candidancy.

I may not have to try to save NCIS from being cancelled after all. A major TV trade mag reported this afternoon that CBS has renewed one drama, "The Unit," for next season, along with three comedies. But that may not be correct, since I have since learned that another major trade mag recently reported that NCIS already has been renewed for a sixth season.

This isn't about politics, but since I mentioned it, supra, I thought this should be corrected forthwith...

I think that Kerry had a polling "lead" four years ago. I think that Dukakis had a huge polling lead 20 years ago. I think dicing and slicing these numbers is a wretched waste of time. I think that McC should run ahead of his party - he has given a lifetime to service to the country. I think that BHO is a formidable campaigner, money raiser, and candidate and should not be underestimated by anyone.

McC has offered town hall meetings held jointly with BHO and that would be interesting, if BHO accepts. I would like to see them have an around-the-table discussion with Charlie Rose. I would like to see BHO keep his word and take fed funding after the convention if McC does.

Do you think what I want to see has any more bearing on this race than current polls? Any less?

To win the election, McCain has to focus on Obama. The more the American people know about Obama, the more they'll reject him (except for the mindless Obamabots).

McCain's problem is that he doesn't offer an attractive alternative to Obama. The McCain of 2000 would win the election by a landslide. But today's McCain sounds confused, contradictory and plain tired.

I shudder to think of either of these flawed candidates as President of the US.

It's so lame to hear all the Hillary folks threatening to vote for the old war horse. I don't like Hillary, but she is better than McCain any day. Get over it and look at their positions and approaches without your bitter baggage.

If you want the same old Republican positions with a touch more anger than stupidity then vote for McCain.

You'll come around when you realize the contrast...WAR, No Energy Policy, Depressed Economy, etc.!

Everyone knows that the Clintons are both going to campaign for Obama this fall. Obama was interviewed this weekend saying his and her campaign were working on her exit stradgedy, including her campaign debt.

The real question remaining is who are the VP's for both parties and how that plays in the race. McCain has had a free ride for the last few months, the party is over come June.

proudtobeGOP writes
"In the general election it comes down to execution, hard work, organization---things that have been in short supply lately on the Dem side as infighting takes over.... one can only conclude by observing the Dem primary SNAFU."

Proud, with all due respect, I think you're deluding yourself. In terms of executing the necessary tasks, wroking hard & organizing, the only campaign - in both parties - to do so successfully nationwide is the Obama campaign. The 'SNAFU' & infighting will disappear once the nomination is settled - just like it did for the GOP.

I agree - lumping states by region is a wacky idea - Chris were you involved with the creation of the DNC delegate allocation formula which sent extra delegates to the red states ?

Regional polling - to be honest I don't think I have ever heard of that one.

I really have a mind-blowing suggestion - poll by individual states - like a separate poll for Ohio.

How many people think that is a good idea?

How about a poll for Michigan - the question can go like this - After Obama's campaign did everything it could to prevent a re-vote in Michigan and having the voice of Michigan voters in within the democratic party, would you vote for Obama in November ?

That is a good question.

How about a poll asking that question to just the people in Michigan ?

If Obama is ahead by these margins (which are comfortable for the general) right now, how large are the margins going to be by August after the Democratic Convention?
Some of Hillary's supporters will come back over (once they emerge from their bunkers and realize even though she didn't win the nomination the world isn't ending)increasing those margins.
The general election has blowout written all over it--it is going to be a tough year to be a republican.

zouk asks
"look at the critical states, not regions or demographics. can Obama carry OH and FL? that is the whole ball of wax."

Only if you assume the 2004 electoral map. In addition to FL & OH, toss-up states include PA, CO and VA, to mention a couple that have significant electoral votes. Both Carolinas could go Dem, depending on GOP turnout, which doesn't look good at this point. In my opinion its a bit early to start listing which states each candidate will win.

bsimon, In the general election it comes down to execution, hard work, organization---things that have been in short supply lately on the Dem side as infighting takes over.... one can only conclude by observing the Dem primary SNAFU.

That's why the Dems, Chairman Dean and their outside interest group allies like ACT are putting so much emphasis on Obama's 50-state registration drive. They apparently know what you are incapable of admitting.

The popular vote means something - in a close race like this - it pulls out many anomalies like the caucus states, red states and small states which mess up the true strength of the candidate with the voters.

Chris - Im not sure where you came up with this wacky idea for a column.

Lumping the states together by region is a worthless number - lets see the numbers by state - electoral college. If the Obama campaign put out these regional numbers in an attempt to convince superdelegates of Obama's strength in November, that would be practically fraud.

Not for nothing, however a post-racial campaign which ran a whisper campaign in the black community - in an attempt to whip up support on the basis of a false charge of "offensive remarks" - that is defintely fraud as well.

These false charges and attacks based on some political correctness WILL BE AN ISSUE THIS SUMMER AND FALL. Believe me, Obama is going to sink based on the actions of his own campaign. The hypocrisy will be showed to everyone.

I didn't forget actually, but thanks for trying to help. I understand you didn't like the tone of my message, so I'll try asking it in a different way:

You said you'll vote for McCain, unless Clinton is on the Dem ticket. Why? What does Senator Clinton have to offer, as a Vice Presidential candidate, that only she can provide?

Its a serious question - and I'm curious to see whether there are serious answers. As you can tell from my prior message, thus far I've had to guess. Perhaps you'd help out & clear up the mystery for me.

I'm against Obama because I feel that he doesn't have enought experience to be President. He only spent 1.5 years in the Senate before ruinning for President and doesn't have any management or military experience. To me, him deciding that he was qualified and ready to be President is prima facie evidence of both extreme arrogance and very poor judgment and I'm concerned that he doesn't have the character, backbone, or the ability to think on his feet or under pressure to be commander in chief.

No matter how clearly I put it, Obama supporters accuse me of being racist.

Its impossible to reason with them, and they are extremely vicious in the personal attacks they make on people who bring up concerns about Obama.

I strongly believe that if we nominate him, we'll lose, and I'm worried that if he were to win, his comments would be perceived as weakness by our country's enemies and lead to attacks by them to test our resolve.

I'm a hard core Democrat, but if Obama's the nominee, I'll vote for McCain, because the safety of my country and my family are the most important thing to me.

Chris: You say Obama supporters "have to be pleased" with the poll, yet you also say it raises "cause for concern" as McCain over-performs in several key demos." You can't have it both ways. Another reading of the poll says a more palatable Dem, such as Edwards or Gore, would be a preferred candidate at the top of the ticket, with Obama agreeing to take the number two slot as a way of checkmating Hillary and acting as party kingmaker and healer in one fell swoo...

Chris that is a bit heavy on the dramatic I'd say. The end is less than a month away, for the Democrats tht is, then on to November. What will be interestiing is if Barr and Nader have anything to play in the race.

I'm against Obama because I feel that he doesn't have enought experience to be President. He only spent 1.5 years in the Senate before ruinning for President and doesn't have any management or military experience. To me, him deciding that he was qualified and ready to be President is prima facie evidence of both extreme arrogance and very poor judgment and I'm concerned that he doesn't have the character, backbone, or the ability to think on his feet or under pressure to be commander in chief.

No matter how clearly I put it, Obama supporters accuse me of being racist.

Its impossible to reason with them, and they are extremely vicious in the personal attacks they make on people who bring up concerns about Obama.

I strongly believe that if we nominate him, we'll lose, and I'm worried that if he were to win, his comments would be perceived as weakness by our country's enemies and lead to attacks by them to test our resolve.

I'm a hard core Democrat, but if Obama's the nominee, I'll vote for McCain, because the safety of my country and my family are the most important thing to me.

If Obama continues to play the race card he will for lose the nominee. And, yes it is the Obama campaign that is putting up that card. People will come out of the wordwork to vote against him. Obama's big problem for non-electabilty is the inexperience he brings. He was not even in the Senate to vote against the war. So not sure why that keeps coming up in this primary as if he made some great decision that is running mates didn't. What happen to the day when the nominee was decided at the convention? This is the most close primary we have ever had. Why is the media so determine to predict the outcome. Let the Democratic process work. This is still America isn't it?

These pregame polls are never accurate when it comes down to November.

At any rate, I'm really tired of Obama's supporters on these blogs. They berate their fellow citizens daily, referring to the people of West Virginia and Kentucky as inbred, ignorant, poor, and racist.

I live in Cincinnati, but I am quite familiar with both states. I would expect more racist attitudes in the deep south than in these areas, especially because there are pockets of WV that are primarily composed of black populations.

At any rate, the only reason Obama won so many Southern states, as we all know, is because he gets approximately 90% of the black vote. Do you not think that within that percentage there are lower income families, farmers, and so forth; the black counterparts to Hillary's constituency? So, why not call them ignorant or poor or uneducated? Oh, I forgot then you would be "racist."

Or do you think that the people who vote for Obama are inherently enlightened, better voters despite their education and income levels?

Regardless, these comments and insults make you look ignorant, not them.

McCain's strong position on the environment is the first shot across the bow against Obama trying to paint him as Bush-lite. McCain's many years as a rebel will serve him well, and Obama's line may backfire if he pushes it too hard. I wonder if the "most liberal voting record in the Senate" charge might pull independents aways from Obama? Either way, the election is Obama's to lose, and there will be no excuse if Obama fails to win in November. Conditions haven't been this good for the Democratic Party since 1932.

Primary election enthusiasm doesn't guarantee general election wins. In fact, studies have found no correlation between primary-voter turnout and success in the general election.

"The Dems are claiming that record voter turnout in their party primaries will translate into winning the White House in November, but election studies show there is no correlation between the two in modern presidential history."

Ah, yes, the famous distractions with which Republicans fool unwitting Americans. Ronald Reagan distracted them with the Iranian hostage crisis, high inflation and unemployment, gas lines and the loss of American prestige abroad. Then, the first George Bush distracted them with the notion of a third Reagan term, as well as the issues of taxes, crime and volunteerism. After a brief interlude of national focus during two Clinton terms, another Bush arrived wielding the dark art of distraction.

Forget "bitter"; Obama must believe that most Americans suffer from an attention-deficit disorder so crippling that they can't concentrate on their own interests or values.

Obama has an acute self-interest in so diagnosing the American electorate. His campaign knows he's vulnerable to the charge of being an elitist liberal. Unable to argue the facts, it wants to argue the law -- defining his weaknesses as off-limits.
.....

Here are the Obama rules in detail: He can't be called a "liberal" ("the same names and labels they pin on everyone," as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can't be questioned ("attempts to play on our fears"); his extreme positions on social issues can't be exposed ("the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives" and "turn us against each other"); and his Chicago background too is off-limits ("pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy"). Besides that, it should be a freewheeling and spirited campaign.
Democrats always want cultural issues not to matter because they are on the least-popular side of many of them, and want patriotic symbols like the Pledge of Allegiance and flag pins to be irrelevant when they can't manage to nominate presidential candidates who wholeheartedly embrace them (which shouldn't be that difficult). As for "fear" and "division," they are vaporous pejoratives that can be applied to any warning of negative consequences of a given policy or any political position that doesn't command 100 percent assent. In his North Carolina speech, Obama said the Iraq War "has not made us safer," and that McCain's ideas are "out of touch" with "American values." How fearfully divisive.

We could take Obama's rules in good faith if he never calls John McCain a "conservative" or labels him in any other way. If he never criticizes him for his association with George Bush. If he doesn't jump on his gaffes (like McCain's 100-years-in-Iraq comment that Obama distorted and harped on for weeks). And if he never says anything that would tend to make Americans fearful about the future or divide them (i.e., say things that some people agree with and others don't).

This is, of course, an impossible standard. Obama doesn't expect anyone to live up to it except John McCain.

It is not my spin, it is Obama's. he made this into an issue. but I know how you Libs hate it when your own words are quoted directly back atcha:

"So Senator Obama declared those who wore an American flag pin on their lapel were relying on a "substitute" for "true patriotism," which apparently he alone embodied. And in a Democratic primary that he thought would be decided by the hard Left, Obama manfully declared, "I won't wear that pin on my chest."

To top it all off, Obama and his campaign made sure that, having put this issue in play, none of his critics could say a word about it. If they did, they were guilty of trying to "distract us from the issues that affect our lives" and "turn us against each other." Serious people don't care about trivial things like an American flag pin on a lapel-except when you're Barack Obama, who considered it a serious enough matter to first remove it and then proudly declare his courageous act of defiance to the Democratic voters of Iowa. And now that he's essentially secured the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama is . . . once again wearing an American flag on his lapel!

It's understandable if you're a bit confused by all this. Late last year the American flag lapel pin was a substitute for "true patriotism." So what has changed between then and now to make it a symbol worth wearing once again? What happened to the proud declaration that "I won't wear that pin on my chest"? Why, the general election in November. If you understand that, the clouds will part and everything will become clear again. What you should have paid attention to is not the arguments Obama made, but the constituency to which he was playing. Obama tacked left in the Democratic primary, ridiculing people who wore an American flag on their lapel, perhaps because it played well with that particular audience. But now that he's going to be the nominee, it might not play so well-and gosh darn it, who says there's anything wrong with wearing an American flag on your lapel anyway?

What we see in this little episode is a man who is extremely smooth and skilled-he saw he had a potential problem and he's now addressing it-and also deeply cynical (even as he runs against, you guessed it, cynicism). He is able effortlessly to put issues in play and then, with the aid of the MSM, declare those issues off-limits-until he decides to declare them legitimate again. Welcome to the wonderful, transcendent, sublime "new politics" of Barack Obama.

Actually, Zouk, Senator Obama tends to wear a flag pin when he is addressing a military group, or at ocassions where it would be a somewhat appropriate piece of jewlery. Make of that what you will, I'm sure you have some sort of spin to attach to it.

Many in the Obama camp, having outfoxed the apparently not-so-formidable Clinton machine, can't seem to get the hang of winning gracefully. They feel a need to drive a stake in Hillary Clinton's reputation, then dance. If they were smart, they'd heap praise on Clinton and let her finish out the race, however she chooses to do so.

That's sage advice, even though offered by Republican mastermind-turned-pundit Karl Rove. Treat Clinton shabbily, he says, and many of her supporters "will remember it by November."

Nonetheless, Obamacans are throwing victory parties over the impending defeat of a fellow Democrat who has thus far pulled in over 47 percent of their party's primary and caucus participants. Some take a more direct approach. In anticipation of the West Virginia primary, college students for Obama were hurling insults at farmers and truck drivers holding signs for Clinton.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, unable to contain himself, administered one last kick to Clinton's dignity by opining that the New York senator lacks the "real leadership" needed for the job of vice president. He said that Obama should pick someone who is "in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people."

So much for the nobility of aspirations held by his own state's Democratic primary voters, who preferred Clinton over Obama by 15 percentage points. Next door in Rhode Island, Rep. Patrick Kennedy dittoes Dad as an unwavering super-delegate for Obama -- this despite Clinton's 18-point win in that state's primary. It's as if the voters are invisible.

Disrespecting the nearly 17 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, but turning them into "the enemy" is insane. Last week's enemy was working-class white people. The Democrats can win without a majority of white voters -- as Obama strategists undiplomatically note -- but they can't win without a strong showing among them.

So Obama partisans do not help their cause by willfully misrepresenting Clinton's reference to "hard-working Americans, white Americans" as racist rather than as a poorly worded observation made in a state of utter exhaustion. The fervor of their outrage suggests that some regard the mere consideration of white people, particularly white men, as a demographic needing a special message is an act of bigotry. (That's as opposed to a thousand other racial and socio-economic groups that politicos routinely slice and dice.)

We now hear pained remarks from the Obama camp that many white men won't vote for any black. Oh really? No one was complaining during the early races in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, when most of the white male participants backed Obama. That was before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ugliness became public.

Weirdly, Obamacan triumphalism seems to be merging with the festivities on the Republican side. You can understand why the right would welcome what it prays is "the end of the Clinton era." Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. His budget surpluses put his so-called conservative predecessors and successor to shame. Wouldn't a vow to build on the Clinton legacy, rather than dismantle it, be a better tack for the Obama campaign?

By the way, Clinton's continued sparring with Obama does not hurt the Illinois senator's chances in November. It only crowds out Republican efforts along that line. Believe me, you'd rather have the Clinton version.

Obama can't beat John McCain without large chunks of Clinton's core constituency: women, Hispanics and the white working class. Dumping on their candidate is one step removed from dumping on them -- and some of the Obama people don't even bother with that step. Rove must be enjoying the show.

Expat who has been a political junkie since the 1960's. I do not understand the rush to have Hillary leave the race. You would think the media especially tv would want it to go to the convention instead of the boring 4 day event with the nominee picked. Maybe it is the new times of I want it now. I wonder if CNN will have another anti Hillary panel tonight. I still think with West Virginia,Kentucky and Puerto Rico Hillary will wind up with the lead in popular votes. The majority of states Obama won like Utah,Idaho,Wyoming,etc will never be in play this november. You really think Obama will win in the deep southern states? We have a candidate in Obama who can win the nomination but not the election. Sad to say that unless he is ahead by 10% in the polls come november 2008 he will see the Bradley effect come election day. We need a Democrat to win to save the supreme court. Maybe I am just out of touch.

You forgot to call me a racist, a bigot, and challenge my educational level. Otherwise, questioning my chromosome count was right in line with what I have come to expect from left-wing Obama supporters. Don't you also think they should take away my right to vote if I don't support the candidate you choose to support? And yes, I will admit that I cling to my guns and religion. But I am a patriotic American who is proud to have the opportunity to support whatever candidate I choose.
And I encourage you to do the same.
Bud Curtis
Miami, OK

These polling numbers appear to refute Shrillary's contention that only she is capable of winning over Generalssomo McCain in November.

What remains to be seen is whether the ogotisim of the Clintons over failure of her stupid enevitability strategy can be set aside, and they will unite behind our party to insure victory over the Generalissomo.

"Still, when matched against the generic numbers, there is reason for concern among Democrats as McCain is clearly over-performing his party in any number of key demographic groups -- a showing that suggests he has the potential to make the November election far closer than the political climate suggests it should be." - CC

Closer, but no cigar. Just because McCain and his fabricated "maverick" status that is parroted by his darling press, runs slightly ahead of the rest of the Republican liars, cheaters and war mongerers, there is no reason to be concerned as a Democrat in 2008. Obama hasn't even begun to campaign against McLame. He will win handily and will bring many downticket candidates along for the ride.

Things are going to be slow now that there's no Hillary to bash.
I'm surprised Chris didn't do a special post on the hate speech directed at anyone who opposed Obama ON THIS BLOG. Shame on you Chris for allowing it.
Maybe the most important story right now is how Obama is ever going to win over the electorate he never had...

WoW: I am pretty much in agreement with you and have tried every way possible to put out ACCURATE information about how the Polls are being conducted and how most of them are skewed in favor of Obama. This is due in large part to The Media. The Internals of any and all Polls is where the true picture can be found. I just voted and the turnout is low where I vote, which is a surprise. WV is critical for the Dems in the GE, and Obama can't win here or Ohio either, so it looks to me if he is the nominee, McCain wins and will be our next Prez.

I like you - I like you alot - however how about some state-by-state analysis.

Seriously man.

This regional crap is just that: crap - what are you doing bunching Illinois and Wisconsin in with Ohio ???

This is the kind of mumbo-jumbo that is completely confusing the country.

McCain is winning in Ohio - beyond that he needs only 10 more electoral votes - which he can get by about 74 different combinations. McCain is strong in this fall race. Obama is only going to sink and pull down democrats.

I like you - I like you alot - however how about some state-by-state analysis.

Seriously man.

This regional crap is just that: crap - what are you doing bunching Illinois and Wisconsin in with Ohio ???

This is the kind of mumbo-jumbo that is completely confusing the country.

McCain is winning in Ohio - beyond that he needs only 10 more electoral votes - which he can get by about 74 different combinations. McCain is strong in this fall race. Obama is only going to sink and pull down democrats.

CC-"Take the gender gap. Obama and McCain are statistically tied among men (Obama 48 percent, McCain 47 percent), but the Illinois senator has a 14-point edge among women. That margin is due in large part to Obama's strength among black women, who favor him over McCain by a whopping 90 points. (That is not a typo.)"

Why would you find this surprising? Obama has been getting near 90% of the black vote in general and consistently in the primaries. That is against another democrat, similar in policy. How does Obama's strength among black men poll? I don't know that it reflects the gender gap as much as it reflects the racial gap.

bcurtis1 writes
"I am in the process of deciding where I stand in the general election if Obama is the nominee. I will definitely vote for McCain, unless Hillary is on the Democratic ticket."

Why? Is it a chromosome thing? A name thing? Can't be policy, as most people agree that Obama & Clinton are pretty comparable in that regard. Is it the 'experience' thing? If so, why not insist on Biden, Dodd, Kennedy, Richardson or some other long-serving Dem on the ticket?

I'm starting to think that, after all the talk of the Obama supporters being in some kind of 'cult', its actually the Clinton supporters that fit the criteria.

I just wanted you to know that I have, several times, tried to read your Friday Line veepstakes entry, but every time it comes up blank. No 404 error or anything, just a white page.

Now, as for the content of this entry, do not forget Bob Barr entering the race as a Libertarian. If he wins the nomination, you can surely expect a spoiler effect, and have GOPers crying foul when he pulls just enough votes to get Obama the presidency. I hear he's going to be more effective than Ralph Nader would, although an electoral vote or two is just too much to ask.

I am in the process of deciding where I stand in the general election if Obama is the nominee. I will definitely vote for McCain, unless Hillary is on the Democratic ticket. I am still not certain that I will vote for an Obama ticket with Clinton on there also, but I definitely will not vote for Obama and anyone else on his ticket.
Bud Curtis
Miami, OK

The Celtics were relieved this morning to find out they really did win last night despite being outscored 88-77.

Hillary campaign manager let them know that the end score really isn't the factor of deciding who wins.

You see Howard Wolfson paid a visit to the Celtics locker room and informed the team he sent off a protest letter to the NBA, showing how the Celtics really won the game.
Howard Wolfson reasons that since the Celtics actually had a higher free throw percentage in the game, a difference of 76.9% to 66.7%, that Celtics in fact really won the game despite the score at the end of the game.